Quality of 35mm scan

Melange

Hi guys, I have a question.

I recently shot a roll of Ilford HP5 (ISO 400, B&W), had it developed at a camera shop and availed of their facility to scan the pictures from the negatives to a CD. I've had a look at the results, and I have to say that I'm surprised by the amount of grain. Here's a link to one of the pics:

http://pix.ie/melange/2210729/size/3360

To those more familiar with film and its properties than I am: is this a standard amount of grain for properly exposed, non-pushed ISO 400 film? It does seem like rather a lot to me. It leaves me wondering if something went awry with the developing or scanning process.

pete4130

Its film, you left it in somewhere to get it developed. NEVER going to be as good as home developement regarding times/temps/quality of chems and/or scanning.

Effects

Have you tried printing it out to see how it looks?

Melange

pete4130 wrote: »

Its film, you left it in somewhere to get it developed. NEVER going to be as good as home developement regarding times/temps/quality of chems and/or scanning.

Good point. I didn't think the difference would be that significant.

Effects wrote: »

Have you tried printing it out to see how it looks?

I printed the digital image to a roughly 12x8 inch size. The grain isn't as blatantly noticeable as in the full-size digital image, but is still very much evident.

magicbastarder

that looks as much like noise as grain.

Heebie

That looks like it was done on a Fuji Frontier system in full-auto mode.

With the default settings a Frontier will scan grainy black & white films that "badly" because it actually ends up sharpening the hell out of the film grain.

It's likely that the technicians who scanned the film don't know how, or aren't allowed, to change the sharpening settings on the system.. but the results do come out a lot better with the sharpening all turned off. (I think the settings is called "all soft" but it might be more complicated than that. It's been 5+ years since I dealt with a Frontier system directly.)

The film itself is probably fine.. get the re-scanned by someone using a different scanning system, or do them yourself, and you'll probably get fine results.. the exposure doesn't look way off or anything.

Melange

Heebie wrote: »

That looks like it was done on a Fuji Frontier system in full-auto mode.

With the default settings a Frontier will scan grainy black & white films that "badly" because it actually ends up sharpening the hell out of the film grain.

It's likely that the technicians who scanned the film don't know how, or aren't allowed, to change the sharpening settings on the system.. but the results do come out a lot better with the sharpening all turned off. (I think the settings is called "all soft" but it might be more complicated than that. It's been 5+ years since I dealt with a Frontier system directly.)

The film itself is probably fine.. get the re-scanned by someone using a different scanning system, or do them yourself, and you'll probably get fine results.. the exposure doesn't look way off or anything.

Thanks for that, it's definitely put my mind at ease quite a bit.

serjical_strike

Melange wrote: »

Hi guys, I have a question.

I recently shot a roll of Ilford HP5 (ISO 400, B&W), had it developed at a camera shop and availed of their facility to scan the pictures from the negatives to a CD. I've had a look at the results, and I have to say that I'm surprised by the amount of grain. Here's a link to one of the pics:

http://pix.ie/melange/2210729/size/3360

To those more familiar with film and its properties than I am: is this a standard amount of grain for properly exposed, non-pushed ISO 400 film? It does seem like rather a lot to me. It leaves me wondering if something went awry with the developing or scanning process.

ive printed mine by hand in college and when scanned they all look very grainy and noisy but the actual print itself isnt like this, i dont know if its my scanner or how i scanned them but they arent the best tbh..!! they are on my flickr if you want to compare http://www.flickr.com/photos/serjical_strike/

all B&W shot with ilford hp5 (400 iso).

Simplicius

There may be several things going on here. As there is no way HP5+ gives that kind of results. Possible culprits are:

Scan settings : As outlined by someone else, although I never had issues with same, I scan my own on a flatbed at home. Its' worth trying to scan that one shot again on another scanner and see if there is a difference.

Underexposure: Doesn't seem to much depth of darkness ( blacks ) in the photo, but this could be underdevelopment too or choice of developer. Did you specify a developer? The blacks should be almost like velvet even when scanned, never mind traditionally printed on Fibre.

Underdevelopment: Hard to tell without seeing neg but another option and probably more of a cause than Underexposure, was the sky so flat and featureless on day of shoting?

Filter: Did you use one? A medium yellow filter should always be on ones lens for B&W.

Hope this helps you find the answer, it probably is a combination of factors.

This is 35mm HP5+ In XTOL 1:1 a straight neg scan no alterations with those photo programmes etc. The Grain is hardly visible and blacks velvety ..


AnthonyCronin642 by Anthony Cronin, on Flickr